Steven's analogy to the postal service is the most apt in this video. And no matter how many times this Chairman tells you that for now the rules won't apply to internet service X, he can't guarantee that they won't next year (or next month). It's no wonder that one 2014 study estimated net neutrality regulations could result in as much as $45.4 billion in new ISP investments being lost over the next five years.

This entire video Can be debunks when people realize how their internet was pre obamas net neutrality policy. Soon the internet will be as absurdly pay-walled as Starwars Battlefront 2 was before public backlash. Net neutrality doesn't allow companies to specialize in giving you the ability to do what you want to do. Let's say there's an isp that specializes in all things gaming.

Net neutrality is the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat content, users, platforms and equipment equally and not discriminate between them. You don't connect to an ISP to access the ISP's content You connect through an ISP to connect to someone else's content (YouTube, Netflix, Facebook, Huff Po, DisInfo Wars, etc).

The battle between state governments and federal governments will increase as blue states believe that they are protecting the Internet by reinstating net neutrality regulations. I bet that when google fiber came in, the other ISPs suddenly had to up their game because they knew that consumers with a choice don't have to tolerate the bad service any more.

Also, if you really think about it, Net neutrality doesn't give everybody free equal internet access. Without net neutrality, nothing prevents ISPs from simply introducing their own streaming services and blocking or at least throttling competing services. +HouseHoldAdventures: Net Neutrality has nothing to do with the ISP competition.

Don't act as if AT&T charging for facetime is the only incident that occurred in regards to ISPs not being neutral on the net. This isp went out and got contracts with the big gaming companies like steam and blizzard and now they offer internet service where most of their server capacity or "pipe" is dedicated to these types of connections.

Ian Tuttle notes at National Review that when the FCC first attempted net neutrality regulations in 2010, they were only able to cite just four examples of anticompetitive behavior, all relatively minor.” Cell phone networks , which are not subject to net neutrality-esque regulations, don't engage in such anticompetitive behavior.

Despite all hype, net neutrality never stopped ISPs from setting their own rates, investing in infrastructure, and becoming profitable. When it comes to making sure I can watch whatever video provider I want, I trust the government regulators more than I do the cable company that has monopoly rights to the data line into my home.

In the end I think the FCC repeal is a good thing because we can push for a better law, we need more competition and honesty from ISP's and also huge infrastructure investments. They pay transit providers to carry their data. Now, every time an internet service might be deemed to transmit a communication (think WhatsApp, Snapchat, Twitter…), it either has to take its chances or ask the FCC in advance to advise it on its likely regulatory treatment.

The FCC would also eliminate a rule barring providers from prioritizing their own content. They couldn' t thrive in a market of net neutrality as these rules created a monopoly of these big corporations, as small isps were not able to take part in a free market and didn't have the opportunity to compete.

You won't have Steven Crowder Net Neutrality Video to pay to use Snapchat, instagram, etc., because not all of the internet service providers would choose that for their customers if it's not the best thing they can do to make money. The net neutrality regulations put in place under the Obama administration involved subjecting the Internet to Title II of the 1934 Communications Act , where it's considered a public utility that is subject to the iron grip of the FCC.